Tracking Prison Censorship in the United States

Please govern yourself accordingly and release from property and deliver to me the following issues of ULK #47 #65 & #69, per Pell v. Procunier, 417 U.S. 817 (1974); and Turner v. Safely, 482 U.S. 78(1987)

I have received your grievance of the above material and am overturning the mail seizure for the above issues. You can be issued the above publications, #47, #65 & #69.

Kenneth W. Stolle, Sheriff/High Constable
Virginia Beach Sheriff’s Office
PO Box 6098
Virginia Beach, VA 23456

May 25, 2020

RE: Censorship of mail to AAA

Dear Sheriff Stolle,

On April 30, 2020, mail that MIM Distributors sent to Mr. AAA were censored at Virginia Beach Jail. The reason given for this censorship was “Hazardous Materials/Biohazards & Any Information Deemed Detrimental to the Security, Good Order, Discipline, And/or Safety of the Facility.” We thank you for sending us a Mail Seizure Form and telling us that the material was denied delivery to Mr. AAA.

The contents of this letter was a study pack titled “Prisoner Labor and the 13th Amendment,” a note to Mr. AAA that we received his mail, and an informational insert for mailroom staff regarding laws for censoring material.

In this informational insert for mailroom staff, it states:

“If you do choose to censor material from MIM Distributors, your notice must [according to Federal case law] provide articulate reasons for such censorship with specific references to the objectionable material. The distributor/publisher must be given a meaningful opportunity to appeal the censorship decision to a person not involved in the censorship decision.”

While we do appreciate that you informed us that the material was seized, this notice still did not provide adequate information to substantiate the censorship, and it did not offer MIM Distributors an opportunity to appeal the decision.

With this letter, we request:
(1) An appeal of the censorship of the materials which were denied delivery to Mr. AAA on 4/30/2020, with review of the materials by someone other than the people who were involved in the original censorship decision.

(2) Timely delivery of the materials which were seized on 4/30/2020 to the intended recipient (Mr. AAA).

(3) Retraining of Virginia Beach Jail mailroom staff regarding proper handling of incoming mail in accordance with Federal and State law.

Sincerely,

SSS
MIM Distributors
PO Box 40799
San Francisco, CA 94140

CC: Affected parties

February 25, 2200

Texas Department of Criminal Justice
Institutions Division
Director’s Review Committee
PO Box 99
Huntsville, TX 77342-0099


Re: Appeal of Censorship of Publication
TDCJ Offender Grievance Manual
Attempted delivery to XXX



To Whom It May Concern:

We are in receipt of a Director’s Review Committee Decision Form (hereinafter, “Form”), dated February 11, 2020 concerning the decision to uphold censorship of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice Offender Grievance Manual. We are the mailing entity listed on the form. We would note that we have never been provided notice of the censorship related to the Form as required by Federal case law.

We wrote to you about this same issue in May 2019 and received no response from your office.

Due process requires adequate notice of the reasons for censorship. Instructive is the District Court’s reasoning set forth in Prison Legal News v. Jones:

“Procunier demands that the publisher "be given a reasonable opportunity to protest" the censorship. Id. at 418. For an opportunity to be reasonable, the publisher must know of the grounds upon which the publication has been censored. See Henry J. Friendly, "Some Kind of Hearing", 123 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1267, 1280 (1975) (explaining that it is "fundamental" to due process that "notice be given . . . that . . . clearly inform[s] the individual of the proposed action and the grounds for it"). This knowledge component of due process does not turn on whether the publication is the first copy or a subsequent copy. What matters is the basis for censorship. If a subsequent impoundment decision is based on a different reason not previously shared with [the publisher], due process requires that [the publisher] be told of this new reason.” 126 F. Supp. 3d 1233, 1258 (N.D. Fla. 2015) (emphasis added).

It is an arbitrary and capricious use of power to censor the TDCJ’s own publication, the Offender Grievance Operations Manual. As a government publication it is freely available and not subject to copyright protection. Further, since the TDCJ fails to provide the manual in its law libraries, we have a Constitutional right to distribute the manual. In plain English, the TDCJ’s censorship of its own manual relating to offender grievances is “asinine.” Is the TDCJ publishing offender manuals which do not comply with TDCJ censorship guidelines?

Your failure to provide notice of censorship as well as the arbitrary and capricious nature of the censorship is a clear violation of our Constitutional rights as the mailer of the manual.

We look forward to your reply concerning this censorship of the TDCJ Offender Grievance Manual and potential litigation concerning same.

Please govern yourself accordingly.

Sincerely,

Texas Department of Criminal Justice
Institutions Division
Director’s Review Committee
PO Box 99
Huntsville, TX 77342-0099


Re: Appeal of Censorship (unnamed item)
Attempted delivery to XXX


To Whom It May Concern:

We are in receipt of a Director’s Review Committee Decision Form (hereinafter, “Form”), dated February 11, 2020 concerning the decision to uphold censorship of the an unnamed item to the above-named prisoner. We are the mailing entity listed on the form. We would note that we have never been provided notice of the censorship related to the Form as required by Federal case law.

Due process requires adequate notice of the reasons for censorship. Instructive is the District Court’s reasoning set forth in Prison Legal News v. Jones:

“Procunier demands that the publisher "be given a reasonable opportunity to protest" the censorship. Id. at 418. For an opportunity to be reasonable, the publisher must know of the grounds upon which the publication has been censored. See Henry J. Friendly, "Some Kind of Hearing", 123 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1267, 1280 (1975) (explaining that it is "fundamental" to due process that "notice be given . . . that . . . clearly inform[s] the individual of the proposed action and the grounds for it"). This knowledge component of due process does not turn on whether the publication is the first copy or a subsequent copy. What matters is the basis for censorship. If a subsequent impoundment decision is based on a different reason not previously shared with [the publisher], due process requires that [the publisher] be told of this new reason.” 126 F. Supp. 3d 1233, 1258 (N.D. Fla. 2015) (emphasis added).

Your failure to provide notice of censorship as well as the arbitrary and capricious nature of the censorship is a clear violation of our Constitutional right. We request a response to this letter within fifteen (15) days of receipt. Failure to do so may result in litigation against the TDCJ. Alternatively, the decision to censor the material intended for Mr. XXXXXX from MIM Distributors may be reversed and the material delivered to the prisoner to whom it was addressed.

We look forward to your reply concerning this censorship.

Please govern yourself accordingly.

Sincerely,

"It encourages or instructs in the commission of criminal activity."